we need to discuss fuel modifier

[Soulyss]

I would agree with that assesment Grits.  What I can propose is that in the future when it is my week at least I try to have to planeset posted by Wednesday so people can ***** and moan er... "debate" it's merrits.    I'll take my best shot at a fuel burn multiplier, but in all honesty I'm not much of a go out and test kinda player so it'll be a guess on my part what will work.  Between Wednesday and Friday if someone wants to do some testing and then report back to me what the found in detail (plane, fuel load, altitude, distance, etc.)  I'll look at changing the fuel burn.  For the sake of simplicity use the aircraft with the shortest legs.    If I feel the proposed fuel burn makes how much fuel someone takes when they sortie without crippling one side or the other, I'll give it a go on a trial basis.  Sound fair?

[Mike_2851]

Yep, OK, I see it now, a hijacked thread.

I saw a comment and replied and it was off subject-sorry

Allright-back to the fuel burn issue

           

[Mister Fork]

Getting back on track and to answer the original question...
I'm not a post hore so I'll keep it simple and sweet.  

The CT staff ALWAYS consider the fuel modifier depending on the size of the map and the distances between bases.  It's never been overlooked.  Sometimes we'll use 1.2, others 1.5.  I've seen setups with 1.75, 1.8, 1.3, etc.  Sometimes we forget to announce it.  

As a reference, the default fuel burn rate for the CT is 1.5.

[ergRTC]

And that gets more to my point.  

Should the default be 1.5 now that we can monitor and adjust our speed/rpm in a realistic fashion.


I do not think it should be so low now.  I may be in a minority.  I just want this discussed.  I am really only pushing for BOB, and early war conditions in the pac where an f4f was a gas hog, as well as the p40b.  This would really give the zeros a boost.



As far as bob is concerned, if the lw is flying over england, and its flying a 109, it should have 10 minutes or less of mil power.  5 minutes across the channel or not.  This is historical, and this will completely alter the game play of BOB as it is now.  If the fuel modifier is set to this, spitfires will also be limited over france.


Seriously, I am just interested in fighting under the circumstances that existed in the war.  In know that we cant do many realistic things in this game, but those that we can do, we should.  We are not going to be flying on 8 hour missions into germany and back (TOD will be interesting), but at least we can make fuel management an issue, as it was directly responsible for many of the strategies used by the pilots, and the strengths and weaknesses of the planes.  


Do you really think a large plane that handled like crap was an advantage?  My perfect example is the 109g10 vs the p51b.  Both planes were out at the same time.  One climbs like a banshee, handles very well and has a good set of guns.  The other climbs okay, but not nearly as well as a early war spit, has a reasonable gun set, and handles okay.  Why is one plane so mediocre compared to the other?  BECAUSE IT IS CARRYING A COUPLE THOUSAND POUNDS OF FUEL!!!!  This is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

[Grits]

Using the new E6B feature I ran some tests just to see what I would find. For each plane the first number is flight time in minutes at 50% fuel and 1.5 burn rate, the second number is minutes of time at 100% fuel and 2.0 burn rate, all at sea level and full throttle no WEP.

A6M2:     30-47
A6M5:      27-41
109F-4:   21-32
109G-2:   20-29
109G-10: 17-27
110G-2:   31-47
F4F:         20-31
F4U1:      29-45
F4U1-D:   19-29
190A-5:   18-28
190A-8:   22-34
190D-9:   17-32
HURRIIc:  21-32
Ki61:       36-55 (!)
La7:        14-21 (!!)
Mossie:   44-71
N1K2:      21-32
P-38:       24-37
P-40E:     25-39
P-47D11: 22-33
P-51B:     32-54
P-51D:     34-50 (?)
Spit V:     20-30
Spit IX:    16-24 (!)
Tiffie:       16-24 (!)
Yak9U:     18-28

Interestingly, the Ki-61 is the best single engine fighter on range, better than both P-51's which I did not know, with the F4U-1 right behind the P-51's. The La7 is the worst by far, Spit IX and Tiffie are terrible with the G-10 and D-9 nipping at their heels. Most interesting is that the majority are in the 18-24 range, which is very close all things considered. Of course this is on internal fuel and does not take drop tanks into consideration, and some of the allied planes have multiple DT options that dramaticly increase their range.

[B17Skull12]

the fuel burn model hasn't been update on a few of those planes.

KI61?!?! WTF?!?!?!

[Grits]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
KI61?!?! WTF?!?!?!

Yeah, thats pretty much what I said when I did the test.

[J_A_B]

He tested them at military power, not ideal cruise.  Hence the planes with more power output at MIL power use more fuel.  Considering that the P-51 is making 400 or so HP more than the KI-61 at MIL power, does it really surprise anyone that the P-51 is using more fuel?

Notice how the 109's decrease in flight time as you move to the more modern versions---this is the same thing in action, as the later 109's would be running at higher power settings at MIL power

If he ran them at their cruise settings it would be closer to what you guys would expect.



Also, do not make the mistake of equating "endurance" (what he tested) with RANGE.  The Ki-61 might stay in the air slightly longer than the P-51 at that power setting, but the P-51 still has greater RANGE since it's about 70 MPH faster at that setting.

J_A_B

[Grits]

I chose MIL power because, unrealisticly,  that is what everybody flies at in transit, and my (unstated) point was at 2.0 burn you would be required to use lower throttle settings in route to get decent time on target. In the tests I also noted ranges but I did not put them in the post.

Range for the Ki61 at 1.5 burn and 50% is 173 miles, range for the P51B was 171 and range for the P51D was 183. The La7 range was 70, while most were between 85-120 at 50% and 1.5 burn. The Mossie was the range king at 236.

If anyone is interested, tomorrow I can do all the planes at ideal cruise in both 1.5 and 2.0 burn.

Some other things that caught my eye:

The P-47 uses the same GPH at IDLE (144) as the 109F does at MIL, while the 190A's make nearly the same HP as the P-47 with a bit over half the GPH as the P-47.

[ergRTC]

Wow, thanks grits, can you check cruise?  Also list cruise speed if you can.  I would do it at work but sadly ah2 does not run on my linux machine.  not that it would be able to take it anyway.

I think cruise speed is going to be the real issue if we can get the ct up to a good fuel modifier.

[Grits]

Sure, I'll run them and post it after I get home. I'll do best cruise minutes of duration, GPH, and speed at best cruise.

Do we want them at 1.5 / 50% and 100% / 2.0 or just one or the other?

[ergRTC]

both if you can, can you change that in flight?

[Grits]

You can change any arena setting like fuel burn rate in flight, but you have to go to the hangar to change your fuel load.

[Grits]

Fuel stats for AH's "Max cruise" (MC) at 50% fuel and 1.5 burn rate. Numbers are, time in minutes, range, and speed at MC.

A6M2: 43-166-237
A6M5: 37-155-258
109F-4: 30-130-272
109G-2: 28-118-267
109G-10: 25-105-270
110G-2: 44-190-268
F4F: 33-123-241
F4U-1: 62-298-302
F4U1D: 39-183-290
190A-5: 31-136-309
190A-8: 37-167-304
190D-9: 42-194-285
HurrIIc: 34-122-215
Ki-61: 41-190-291
La7: 28-137-317
Mossie: 80-351-265
N1K2: 30-136-274
P-38: 52-229-273
P-40E: 50-181-225
P-47D-11: 47-156-206(!)
P-51B: 67-309-295
P-51D: 68-328-298
Spit V: 34-131-246
Spit IX: 25-107-261
Tiffie: 21-101-300
Yak9U: 28-134-288

Stats at MC, 100% fuel and 2.0 burn, again numbers are time, range and speed at cruise.

A6M2: 65-249-237
A6M5: 58-240-258
109F-4: 45-195-272
109G-2: 40-179-267
109G-10: 37-168-270
110G-2: 64-284-268
F4F: 49-191-241
F4U-1: 91-451-302
F4U-1D: 59-277-290
190A-5: 41-204-309
190A-8: 56-268-304
190D-9: 63-297-285
HurrIIc: 52-184-215
Ki-61: 60-286-291
La7: 42-209-317
Mossie: 123-524-265
N1K2: 46-202-274
P-38: 79-351-273
P-40E: 73-255-225
P-47D-11: 71-242-206
P-51B: 109-526-295
P-51D: 100-497-298
Spit V: 49-201-246
Spit IX: 39-163-261
Tiffie: 33-157-300
Yak9U: 42-198-288

There are some surprizes in there. Some planes like the Ki-61 are only a few MPH slower at MC (291) than they are at MIL (305),  while some most noteably the P-47 (206) are very slow at MC. Notice the 190A8 is significantly better than the A5 and both MC speeds are over 300MPH. Look at the P-51's and the F4U-1, all three have outstanding range, each almost 3 times longer MC than the Spit 9 or Tiffie. The P-51's, if given unlimited WEP, even at WEP consumption rate they would still have longer range than all the 109's, the F4F, HurriIIc, both Spits, and  the Tiffie do at MC! I expected the twin engine planes to do well, and they did, but notice the P-40E, it is better than the P-47, has higher speed MC and is right behind the P-38 on range. The Zekes, like so many other traits, their range is not as good as the popular myth would lead you to believe, sure they are better than the Wildcat, but they are really only mid-pack.


Soooooo....what does all this mean? It means that we have to do something to give those planes that had up to a THREE times longer range than their opponents an advantage without crippling the shorter ranged planes. Setting the burn rate so that very short range planes like the 109's, Spits, Tiffies, and La7 MUST take 100% fuel minimum (and probably DT's too) will do that. Those planes with longer range see that advantage in not having to load full fuel and/or faster transit to target from not having to run at MC. All aircraft remain just as useful as they were before, but if you want an La7, Spit 9 or a 109G-10 you better not leave the hangar unless you have 100% minimum and you transit to the fight at MC.

[Crumpp]

One problem is that the ranges/times are all goofed up.  The 190A had about three times the range of the 109 on average.

Crumpp